Academic Virtual and Digital Reference

 

In 1964, Canadian communications theorist Marshall McLuhan began his book Understanding Media with the following paragraph: “In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium – that is, of any extension of ourselves – result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology…Many people would be disposed to say that it was not the machine, but what one did with the machine, that was its meaning or message. In terms of the ways in which the machine altered our relations to one another and to ourselves, it mattered not in the least whether it turned out cornflakes or Cadillacs[1].” McLuhan was speaking of the broad social and cultural implications of electronic technologies such as the telephone and television. His following book, The Medium is the Message, published in 1967, further articulates his ideas: “The medium, or process of our time – electronic technology – is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and every aspect of our personal life. It is forcing us to reconsider and re-evaluate practically every thought, every action, and every institution formerly taken for granted. Everything is changing – you, your family, your neighborhood, your education, your job, your government, your relation to ‘the others.’ And they’re changing dramatically. Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communications. The alphabet, for instance, is a technology that is absorbed by the very young child in a completely unconscious manner, by osmosis so to speak. Words and the meaning of words predispose the child to think and act automatically in certain ways. The alphabet and print technology fostered and encouraged a fragmenting process, a process of specialism and of detachment. Electric technology fosters and encourages unification and involvement. It is impossible to understand social and cultural changes without a knowledge of the workings of media.[2]”

Now, forty years after the publication of his first book, it is interesting to apply some of his ideas to the increasingly pervasive Internet and its accompanying technologies, such as email and instant messaging. We can ask ourselves, as librarians, what would McLuhan have to say about the advent of electronic reference services? How has it changed the sociology and culture of the library community? Does the medium used to answer reference questions matter more than the content of the answers provided? Has the use of machines in providing service “altered our relations to one another and to ourselves” so that it matters not in the least whether we turn out answers about cornflakes or Cadillacs? What are the social and cultural consequences within the library community of digital and virtual reference service?

As early as the 1980s, some of the larger research libraries began experimenting with the idea of email reference. These early adopters of new technology were mostly scientists – engineers and health science researchers[3]. As email became a more popular method of communication, especially on university and college campuses in the early to mid 1990s, many academic libraries began offering the service as well. As more and more students and professors gained access to the Internet and email from their dorm rooms, homes and offices, it became easier for them to email questions to a reference librarian than to leave their desks and go to the library in person. As technology improved and continued to change, reference departments in academic libraries began incorporating even more new technology, such as web forms and “real time” synchronous chat software. The incorporation of new services and technologies raised, and continues to raise, a number of problems and questions for reference departments. Each institution seems to have responded differently depending on resources available to them, and to best meet their own needs. A number of case studies on electronic reference services in academic libraries have since been published or presented and will be discussed below.

DEFINITIONS

Before the case studies can be properly discussed, however, it is important to define and distinguish some of the terminology that has evolved to describe the application of technology to reference services. In much of the literature, the terms “virtual,” “digital,” and “electronic“ seem to be used interchangeably. Do these terms actually mean the same thing, or are different articles and books actually talking about different subjects and services? While this topic could surely be a separate paper by itself, some definitions need to be briefly stated here. 

The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (2000) defines digital as it relates to computer science as “of or relating to a device that can read, write, or store information that is represented in numerical form.” Virtual is defined as “existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name,” and as it related to computer science as “created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network.” A usage not following the definition of virtual provides a more comprehensive description :The adjectives virtual and digital and the prefixes e- and cyber- are all used in various ways to denote things, activities, and organizations that are related or carried out chiefly in an electronic medium. There is considerable overlap in the use of these items…To a certain extent the choice of one or another of these is a matter of use or convention…But there are certain tendencies. Digital is the most comprehensive of the words, and can be used for almost any device or activity that makes use of or is based on computer technology, such as a digital camera or a digital network. Virtual tends to be used in reference to things that mimic their “real” equivalents. Thus a digital library would be simply a library that involves information technology, whether a brick-and-mortar library equipped with networked computers or library that exists exclusively in electronic form, whereas a virtual library could only be the latter of these[4].

Thus, following this usage note, a Virtual Reference Desk is not an actual physical desk, but rather a computer based electronic or online community space that serves the same function as an actual reference desk within a library building. A Digital Reference Desk might either an online or electronic space, or an actual physical desk within a library building that provides networked computers or CD-ROMS or other electronic technology resources to patrons.

When talking about reference services some libraries continue to use virtual and digital interchangeably. In Washington State, the definition includes technologies that don’t even exist yet: “Virtual Reference Service includes all electronic methods by which libraries fulfill customers’ information needs: email, online forms, interactive chat and web-browsing software. We also recognize that as the project proceeds, it may incorporate unanticipated technology that allows even more flexible and sophisticated methods for information delivery.[5]”  But for the Northwest Academic Library Consortium, which includes libraries in Washington state as well as Oregon, there is a more specific definition: “’Virtual Reference,’ for the purposes of the Task Force discussions, means live reference, most likely using some sort of ‘chat’ software.  And, they also distinguish electronic reference from virtual reference; “All represented libraries provide some sort of electronic reference (all provide email reference, some through email software, some through web page reference) at the present time.[6]” 

The definitions for “digital reference” vary as well. The Collaborative Digital Reference Service presents a slide which shows “Digital Reference = access to information + use of new technologies.[7]” Alternatively, authors Joseph Janes, David Carter and Patricia Memmott created the following definition when unable to find a standard definition in previous literature: “digital reference service is a mechanism by which people can submit their questions and have them answered by a library staff member through some electronic means (email, chat, Web forms, etc.), not in person or over the phone. This definition seemed to capture all the important aspects of services currently in use and exclude services that would not normally be considered ‘digital reference’.[8]” Electronic reference seems to be a blanket term, used to refer to both digital and virtual reference, as well as any reference transaction that involves any kind of electronic media, whether in a physical library building or only online.

It is curious that no standardized definitions have been established by ALA or others in the profession to distinguish “virtual,” “digital,” and “electronic” reference services. After more than 10 years of using these services, libraries and authors seem to still be using slightly different definitions in each individual case. This renders the literature concerning that subject somewhat inconsistent, and makes direct comparison impossible. Of course, each institution must implement services to suit its needs; it is not the services that should be standardized. Rather, the semantics should be studied and evaluated, so that there is a greater understanding of the differences between virtual, digital and electronic reference, if in fact there are any differences at all.

CASE STUDIES

There have been many case studies concerning the “nuts and bolts” of electronic reference service implementation – how a particular type of service was chose; how the service was marketed; how staff were trained to use the software and provide services; how many reference questions were answered electronically over a period of time. Other studies have focused more on the changes in attitude towards reference service of librarians and/or patrons. These studies show how the changing media and methods of reference work have impacted librarians and users, thus these studies are more relevant for discussion in this paper.

The earliest studies found were from the early to mid 1990s, and focused on the use of technologies that were relatively new at the time – email and CD-ROM databases. In 1991, Tenopir and Neufang interviewed reference librarians from major research libraries on their impressions of how electronic reference initiatives had changed their work environment, types of formal instruction of users, and the fundamental nature of reference work.[9] When the study was done, 97% of the 96 libraries represented in the study had some kind of online services available. 96% offered use of CD-ROMs at the reference desk and 37.%% made their reference databases searchable via OPACs. The study found that almost all librarians agreed the reference desk had become busier since the introduction of CD-ROM products. More patrons were coming to the desk, but also more time was spent with each patron as librarians found themselves having to teach patrons how to use the electronic resources. Some librarians felt that they had not received adequate training themselves, and thus required even more time, as they had to learn some of the software as they were teaching it.[10] They believed that over time, the resources would become more user-friendly and students would become more familiar and adept and using them. Thus, they expected to provide less instruction at the reference desk in the future.

Another major finding was that users’ attitudes about the library were changing. Librarians reported more patrons coming to the library to use online searching and OPAC services as well as CD-ROMs. They also found their patrons were satisfied with the immediacy of response that electronic reference sources provided. In some cases, however, patrons were upset to find that their library did not subscribe to full-text print journals that were indexed on the CD-ROM databases.[11] Finally, the librarians felt that reference work in general had not changed. They noted that format of sources might change, but their interaction with patrons and research strategies had remained the same.

In 1995, 1998, and 2000, Tenopir and Ennis recreated this study, asking the same ARL libraries from the 1991 study how reference services had changed in the past few years. The 1998 study found that the “nature of academic reference work and the environment of reference departments have changed profoundly in the last few years. More sources, more options for sources, higher patron expectations, and, of course, more reliance on new technologies creates an environment that never seems to rest. Reference departments are dynamic, exciting places, where even the definition of “place” is expanding as reference services reach out to remote users.”[12] They found that the Internet had become ubiquitous by 1998, especially on university campuses, and cite this as a major change from the earlier services. More people became aware of more options for research. They also found, however, that many students still had substandard computer skills, and rather than providing less instruction, they were in fact providing more. Most librarians felt their workload had increased, and that they had to spend more time on technical troubleshooting than actual reference work.[13]

By 2000, 28% of the ARL libraries were providing real time synchronous reference through chat or other software, and many more were planning to implement real time services in the next few years.[14] Despite providing email and real time reference services, in person service at the reference desk in the library was the most heavily used option for all of the libraries in all four years the survey was conducted.[15]

In contrast to this last finding, a 1992 survey by Indiana University librarian Ann Bristow showed that students and faculty at her university who used their computer on a daily basis valued email reference over visiting the reference desk in person.[16] Her 1994 follow-up survey, which included librarians at the university, found that the librarians still valued traditional in-person reference service over answering questions via email or telephone.[17]

At North Carolina State University, real time reference services were incorporated to serve the large number of distance learners who were physically unable to come to the library reference desk for help.[18] Without electronic technology , there would not be distance learners, and this is just another example of how new media and technology have changed the entire university culture, as well as that of the library. At NCSU, they have offered email reference services since 1990. After only four months of publicized real time reference service, it was being used as much as the email service. Use of the new real time service was expected to rise as more users learned of and became comfortable with the technology. The librarians had mixed attitudes about the new service: “Some are enthusiastic about this experiment; others are more hesitant, wondering what niche chat fills that the traditional desk, phone, and e-mail could not better accommodate. So far, no one has derided the service as an experiment not worth trying.”[19]

CONCLUSION

As we can see from these few brief examples, electronic technology has changed reference services dramatically in the past twenty years. It is certain that drastic changes will continue as technology evolved. Libraries will continue to add new and improved services to meet user needs and expectations. Staff training will have to be constant so that reference librarians can keep up with the technology the users expect them to know inside and out.

As a result of continuous change, the terminology, sociology and culture of the library will continue to evolve. Librarians and patrons will adapt to differing workloads, needs and expectations. Individual institutions must continue to evaluate as assess their own situations to determine which services and methods will be most useful. Virtual reference is not simply traditional reference work without the desk. It “is more than a simple set of techniques and technologies – it is an attempt by the library and related communities to come to terms with human intermediation in today’s digital libraries.”[20]

In response to the questions raised by Marshall McLuhan’s social and cultural communications theory noted at the beginning, no matter what the medium used in providing reference service, librarians must be able and willing to adapt and learn in order to continue to effectively deliver the message to the user. “Although the Internet undoubtedly will become increasingly important as a reference resource, there is still a large role for the information professional as intermediary.”[21]